Jump to content

Temp Caches Being "Listed" on GC.com


Recommended Posts

You know, I really don't have the time to check the events of the other 46 states. But I'm pretty sure it isn't just a upper-midwest thing :laughing:
These multi-logging threads all seem involve those states. If it was more widespread then we aren't hearing about it. I'm just glad that the "fun"gus hasn't spread to San Diego.
Link to comment

I wanted to know if this site allowed this event to be published in it's current form, or if they were slipped in post publication. Many have accused TPTB of straddling the fence on the Temp Cache issue. If they allowed this Event to be published in it's current form, that tells ME something.

When THIS Event was submitted, three months prior to publication, the temps had not been placed. So no, the additional waypoints were not listed.

 

I have submitted other events with additional waypoints (temps) already included.

 

if they were slipped in post publication

 

If that is meant as a snide comment, our reviewer is very proactive and would know that was done.

Link to comment

you'd think we were having a theological debate..

 

Someone asked why we don't just publish these temp caches instead of using the multiple attend tactic.

 

I just created 9 new caches for my event this past weekend. I had read mulitple threads like this one (I forsaw this thread on our forum calendar!! :laughing:) and decided not to go the temp-cache route.

 

But what about next year? We plan on making our event an annual affair, and it wouldn't be possible or fesable to create new caches every year in the same location. This creates need for temp caches.

 

Or take the WGA for example. They have two large events every year. They couldn't create dozens of permanent caches in one state park and hope to be able to take care of them when they come from all over the state to the designated event area. Thus the need for temp caches.

 

I guess I just don't see what the problem is with the multiple logging of events. If the feature is there, then why complain about it.

 

(Oh, and as for the gospel of Jeremey thing..I choose to interpret it to say "All Wisconsin cachers can log multiple attended logs for their temp caches.") lol :mad:)

Edited by ~Hylife~
Link to comment
Someone asked why we don't just publish these temp caches instead of using the multiple attend tactic. I just created 9 new caches for my event this past weekend. I had read mulitple threads like this one (I forsaw this thread on our forum calendar!! :laughing: ) and decided not to go the temp-cache route. But what about next year? We plan on making our event an annual affair, and it wouldn't be possible or fesable to create new caches everywhere in the same location. This creates need for temp caches.
Actually a year is long enough to archive the old caches and move all the caches 100 feet to new hiding spots and make new ones. At least this gives everyone up to one year to find those caches and gets rid of the clutter on the event page. Plus all the caches would be reviewed that way. Just an idea.... :mad: Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment

Borea summed it up my thinking quite well -

 

November 7 by King Boreas (1315 found)

For the Geocaching "purists" and Geopolice: My "found" count includes multiple attended logs on event pages for temporary caches at the event. If this offends your delicate sensibilities, feel free to deduct for those finds- or even ignore the event cache logs completely. Better yet, just skip looking at my stats altogether. They are my own stats, for my own enjoyment- not for you to look at and judge how I play the game or your opinion of my personal ethics. If you don't like it, frankly I don't care.

 

Indeed, if I detect such a practice, I do just that - ignore that cacher's stats. From my perspective, his cache find count now means nothing. From his perspective, it means quite a bit. On a similar note, would my total find mean something to you if I divulged that since about this time last year, that many of my finds have not been logged on line? To someone "about the numbers," it would mean nothing, since my low count is just that - a piddly low count. To someone "about the hike," or whatever, it may generate more respect, since I am not about the numbers.

 

"...rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our own will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others." - Jefferson

 

I think we all can live contentedly with our own perspectives. As long as false finds are not logged, say, on a cache that means something to somebody, no harm done.

Link to comment

I believe I'm on the exact same side of the fence I was on during the great pocket lint debate of aught six. Did the property line move? :mad:

 

Or is something I said back then still stuck like a pebble in your shoe?

Nope, what you and others said doesn't bother me at all, or else I would've said more. I solved the problem and moved on. I brought it up here since it was ironic to see you say "stay away from MY finds" (paraphrasing).

Pitchforks and torches can be carried on both sides of a fence. Whether it's temp caches at events or pocket caches, I much prefer putting down the pitchforks and torches, picking up a hiking stick and GPS, and finding a geocache. :huh:

 

Ummm, okay. There's the disconnect. I NEVER said or even meant "stay away from my finds" in any way shape or form. That's not a paraphrase, that's a misinterpretation. I said that when someone else's perceived illegitimate finds start to somehow erase my legit ones, then I'll care. Now, what are the odds I'll ever care about this issue? (RK keeps tellin' me I'm too obscure.)

 

That is not a warning to stay away. I could care less who stalks my finds to scrutinize them. I have just over 500 finds in five years, so pumping my numbers is not an issue with me. I'm still waiting for a low find count over a long period to come into fashion. If any geo-cop wants to hand me a ticket for something they perceive to be wrong with my stats, I'll laugh at them. Their opinion matters not to me.

 

I believe what rubbed you the wrong way in the great pocket lint debate of aught six was me pointing out that there were numerous Groundspeak lackeys partaking of the dread pocket lint or at least witness to it at GW3 and that there was a full year to address the issue (if there ever was one) PROactively rather than the, IMO shameful, reactionary measures that were taken after GW4 that were caused by a thread quite like this one. What happened in the aftermath frankly ticked a great many people off needlessly. Many folks still believe there was a hidden agenda during that debate. I don't know what to believe. I happen to like most of the parties on both sides of the fence and besides, I've slept since then.

 

I don't advocate any of these practices, but it doesn't affect me for good or ill, so I'd rather utilize the braincells that folks reserve for being angsty over other people's logging ethics for something more pressing like heartbeat and breathing. :D

 

Threads like this remind me of a screaming toddler that has gone ultrasonic. I can't look away, because I wanna see if the kid is gonna pass out. :laughing:

Link to comment

...I'm still waiting for a low find count over a long period to come into fashion....

 

Hey! I admire low find counts over a long period of time! There's several cachers whom I respect greatly whose long-time counts are low.

 

While I am certainly not the fashion canary passing out and indicating the latest trend, not to mention my opinion is worth nil - it is a start, n'est pas?

Link to comment

I think is more like Sally wants to add a rule to hopscotch that says she can count temporary squares she lands in during normal play.

 

It's all fine and good until a new student arrives at the school and gets confused and runs home crying to his mommy because the people in the midwest don't play hopscotch like they do in the rest of the world and that he wants to move back home to Oregon where all his friends are. He hates it in Wisconsin and wishes daddy didn't have to take that new job in Wisconsin because he was too friendly with his secretary at his old job in Oregon.

Link to comment

From my point of view I see it more like, "Waaaah! Teacher, Sally isn't playing hopscotch during recess, she's jumping rope. Waaaaah. We all like to play hopscotch, which is the only thing we all played at the beginning of the school year, but someone brought that jump rope and now she's having fun using it. Waaaaah! Make her stop having fun, we'd rather play hopscotch."

Then teacher says, 'Why do you want her to play hopscotch instead of jumping rope?"

And you reply, "I never said I wanted her to play hopscotch, I just don't want her jumping rope because we don't want to jump rope".

 

Waaaaah.

But what if Sally is jumping rope on the hopscotch court? How can the other children play hopscotch if Sally is in the way?

 

I think is more like Sally wants to add a rule to hopscotch that says she can count temporary squares she lands in during normal play. The other children complain that they don't count the temporary squares; in fact there are no such things as temporary squares. The teacher says "I think Sally's rules are silly, but I'm not going to be the hopscotch police. If you children can't work it out then one group should only count the permanent squares and ignore the group that is using Sally's rules, since it doesn't affect the way you are playing."

Okay, lets go with your analogies and see if they fit.

 

Your first - Sally is jumping rope ON the hopscotch court. Apparently you think the multiloggers are playing on your court and keeping you from playing your game. How exactly are they keeping you from playing your game the way you want to play? Bad analogy.

 

Your second - Sally is counting temporary squares and she's throwing of the game. I'm not really sure what the rules are in hopscotch, maybe TrailBlazers can look them up for us, but if it's a competition where counting the temporary squares gives her an advantage, then it's not like our game at all. Another bad analogy.

 

Sorry, I probably didn't understand what you were trying to say. Please clarify.

Link to comment

To me, the height of selfishness is to want to remove someone else's fun simply because you don't care to play the same way. "If I'm not going to do it, nobody else should either".

 

Instead, why not embrace differences and be more tolerant of other people's idea of what they enjoy?

 

I don't think anyone, including the OP, has a problem with using the additional waypoints for temp caches. It's a great way to get them into your GPSr.

 

The issue is using them to list multiple "attended" logs, which as the big J stated, is just plain "silly".

 

They are temps because either through laziness or due to the fact that they do not meet guidelines, are not listed. Since they are not listed, they don't meet the minimum requirements for logging. Go ahead and find them, it's not a competition and numbers do not matter, don't log them.

 

The fact that the issue is being ignored or not directly addressed simply means that resources are allocated to more pressing issues.

 

As to it being right or wrong, take another scenario. A cacher decides they do not like another cacher because of some personal reasons. Whenever that cacher finds one of theirs hides, they simply delete them (and keep deleting them). They're within their rights, it is their hide to maintain. Is this wrong? Watch how you answer, because from a purely black and white perspective using only the guidelines, there is no difference.

Edited by baloo&bd
Link to comment

Your second - Sally is counting temporary squares and she's throwing of the game. I'm not really sure what the rules are in hopscotch, maybe TrailBlazers can look them up for us, but if it's a competition where counting the temporary squares gives her an advantage, then it's not like our game at all. Another bad analogy.

 

This part is only bad if you come from the position that numbers do not count, and those logging temps only do it for the numbers, otherwise they would not log them seperatley or only post them as notes.

Link to comment

I much prefer putting down the pitchforks and torches, picking up a hiking stick and GPS, and finding a geocache. :laughing:

And if it's listed on this site, log it! :mad:

 

And if it's not, log it on an archived cache that you think nobody is watching. Because after all, you have to keep the numbers right. You found a cache, and you really deserve a smiley.

Link to comment
... I think it's selfish to clutter up event pages with hundreds of logs that say "temp cache." I wish you guys could crank up your find counts without screwing up event cache pages. It is very enjoyable to read through everyone's "attended" logs and the look at the photos they took. I hope it doesn't spread out here. If it does I'll quit attending events. I've already had to all but quit urban caching because of this obssession with numbers.
At the end of the day, the person who gets to decide whether a, event page is 'cluttered up' is the person putting on the event. You have control over your cache pages. They have control over theirs.
That is why I concluded by saying that I will not attend numbers pumping temp cache events. :laughing:
I take a different tack. I enjoy what I want from an event and don't participate in the rest.

 

In this situation, I would use the additional waypoints to find the temporary event caches, but I likely wouldn't log them individually as finds.

Luckily it has not spread out here. As far as I can tell, it's spread from from Wisconson to Illiniois, Iowa, and Minnesota. Any other places I've missed?

So the closest to San Diego that you're aware this problem has come is Iowa? That's 1,300 miles to the closest corner of Iowa from you. And you've complained that multiloggers fill up event cache pages that you like to read logs in.

 

Tell me seriously, how often do you read the logs of event caches in these states??????

 

You're actually complaining about something that cachers do six states away! Wow. In my playground analogy you're not only complaining about Sally not wanting to play basketball with you, she goes to a school on the other side of town too!!!

 

With this post of yours, you've lost any remaining bit of sympathy I could muster for your complaints.

Link to comment

Your second - Sally is counting temporary squares and she's throwing of the game. I'm not really sure what the rules are in hopscotch, maybe TrailBlazers can look them up for us, but if it's a competition where counting the temporary squares gives her an advantage, then it's not like our game at all. Another bad analogy.

 

This part is only bad if you come from the position that numbers do not count, and those logging temps only do it for the numbers, otherwise they would not log them seperatley or only post them as notes.

Numbers don't count in any sort of competition. The number of caches I've found has nothing to do with the number that you've found. But numbers do matter to me - my numbers. And I'm sure your numbers matter to you. The people that multilog probably really enjoy their numbers. Nothing wrong with that.

 

The multiloggers may even compare their numbers to mine, and feel that their 2000 smilies they got this month are better than the 600ish I've gotten in several years. Nothing wrong with that either. They're free to think whatever they want. It's not going to bother me. I'm just happy they're having fun, I know I am.

Link to comment
As to it being right or wrong, take another scenario. A cacher decides they do not like another cacher because of some personal reasons. Whenever that cacher finds one of theirs hides, they simply delete them (and keep deleting them). They're within their rights, it is their hide to maintain. Is this wrong? Watch how you answer, because from a purely black and white perspective using only the guidelines, there is no difference.

This doesn't ring true to me. If someone doesn't like me and deletes my finds, their actions are having an effect on my find count and the fun I'm able to have.

 

Multiloggers aren't having any effect on your find count, and they don't keep you from being able to do anything.

 

So it's not the same, there is a huge difference.

Link to comment
... I think it's selfish to clutter up event pages with hundreds of logs that say "temp cache." I wish you guys could crank up your find counts without screwing up event cache pages. It is very enjoyable to read through everyone's "attended" logs and the look at the photos they took. I hope it doesn't spread out here. If it does I'll quit attending events. I've already had to all but quit urban caching because of this obssession with numbers.
At the end of the day, the person who gets to decide whether a, event page is 'cluttered up' is the person putting on the event. You have control over your cache pages. They have control over theirs.
That is why I concluded by saying that I will not attend numbers pumping temp cache events. :laughing:
I take a different tack. I enjoy what I want from an event and don't participate in the rest.

 

In this situation, I would use the additional waypoints to find the temporary event caches, but I likely wouldn't log them individually as finds.

Luckily it has not spread out here. As far as I can tell, it's spread from from Wisconson to Illiniois, Iowa, and Minnesota. Any other places I've missed?

So the closest to San Diego that you're aware this problem has come is Iowa? That's 1,300 miles to the closest corner of Iowa from you. And you've complained that multiloggers fill up event cache pages that you like to read logs in.

Actually I am aware of one event 120 miles away from here that did this. I didn't want to condemn all of California because of one instance. A lot of people were not happy about, it so I'm not aware of it happening again. Anyhow, you defend people that are thousands of miles from you all the time. So why can't I defend the people in those areas that can no longer enjoy reading event pages because they are so cluttered up and can no longer watch events because they will get spammed? My strategy has always been to fight cancer when it is small. Once it spreads all over, it's too late. Finally, I did suggest a way to have approved caches at these events above. Are you against looking at alternatives that would make both sides happy? Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment
To me, the height of selfishness is to want to remove someone else's fun simply because you don't care to play the same way. "If I'm not going to do it, nobody else should either".

 

Is the act of logging attends at events actually fun? I always thought hunting caches was fun and the act of logging was more of an obligation. I'm going to have to re-think this.

 

Maybe I'll go log some attends on some old events. I'm at work and not having a whole lot of fun at the moment. Maybe I can spice things up here a bit by logging some attendeds and find out what I've been

missing all along.

Link to comment

What everyone doesn't understand is that *I* (Can only speak for myself) don't care what someone 2000 miles away from me does. I will probably never log the same caches that they have done, so that's not really the point. Does it hurt me? No, not really. So what is the problem then?

 

It's the slippery slope theory. It may not be hurting the game right now, but it is playing a part in changing the game in a direction that I do not feel that it should be going. That is the problem I have, not with any specific incidence of multi-logging, but in what it has the potential of doing to the game in the long run.

 

I am concerned about the future of the game, not just what it does for me, right now.

Link to comment
As to it being right or wrong, take another scenario. A cacher decides they do not like another cacher because of some personal reasons. Whenever that cacher finds one of theirs hides, they simply delete them (and keep deleting them). They're within their rights, it is their hide to maintain. Is this wrong? Watch how you answer, because from a purely black and white perspective using only the guidelines, there is no difference.

This doesn't ring true to me. If someone doesn't like me and deletes my finds, their actions are having an effect on my find count and the fun I'm able to have.

 

Multiloggers aren't having any effect on your find count, and they don't keep you from being able to do anything.

 

So it's not the same, there is a huge difference.

No, it actually as far as GC.com is concerned, *IS* the exact same thing.

Just like the topic of discussion:

  • There is no guideline or rule against it.
  • The website software allows you to do it.
  • TPTB know it happens and have said they will not be the log police. And,
  • TPTB do not like the practice, yet they refuse to stop it.

So, does that make it ok to do it?

Link to comment
Your second - Sally is counting temporary squares and she's throwing of the game. I'm not really sure what the rules are in hopscotch, maybe TrailBlazers can look them up for us, but if it's a competition where counting the temporary squares gives her an advantage, then it's not like our game at all. Another bad analogy.

This part is only bad if you come from the position that numbers do not count, and those logging temps only do it for the numbers, otherwise they would not log them seperatley or only post them as notes.

What is Mushtard is talking about? Why is he bringing me into this moronic hopscotch analogy? I want no part of it. :laughing: Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment
As to it being right or wrong, take another scenario. A cacher decides they do not like another cacher because of some personal reasons. Whenever that cacher finds one of theirs hides, they simply delete them (and keep deleting them). They're within their rights, it is their hide to maintain. Is this wrong? Watch how you answer, because from a purely black and white perspective using only the guidelines, there is no difference.

This doesn't ring true to me. If someone doesn't like me and deletes my finds, their actions are having an effect on my find count and the fun I'm able to have.

 

Multiloggers aren't having any effect on your find count, and they don't keep you from being able to do anything.

 

So it's not the same, there is a huge difference.

No, it actually as far as GC.com is concerned, *IS* the exact same thing.

Just like the topic of discussion:

  • There is no guideline or rule against it.
  • The website software allows you to do it.
  • TPTB know it happens and have said they will not be the log police. And,
  • TPTB do not like the practice, yet they refuse to stop it.

So, does that make it ok to do it?

I still think the fact that since one practice changes someone else's game, and the other doesn't, makes them two different things.

 

Multilogging doesn't bother me when other people do it because it doesn't change my game.

Deleting my finds simply because you don't like me would definitely change my game, and I'd be opposed to that.

 

I'm guessing that TPTB have refused to stop it because they see that it's not hurting the folks that don't multilog in any significant way. But that's just a guess.

Link to comment
To me, the height of selfishness is to want to remove someone else's fun simply because you don't care to play the same way. "If I'm not going to do it, nobody else should either".

 

Is the act of logging attends at events actually fun? I always thought hunting caches was fun and the act of logging was more of an obligation. I'm going to have to re-think this.

 

Maybe I'll go log some attends on some old events. I'm at work and not having a whole lot of fun at the moment. Maybe I can spice things up here a bit by logging some attendeds and find out what I've been

missing all along.

It's most likely no fun at all for most cachers. Seriously, have you ever looked at an event page and read some of those logs? They go something like this the majority of the time ,,,

 

Found temp cache #1 at **** event,

Found temp cache #2 at **** event,

Found temp cache #3 at **** event,

and so on, and so on,,,,,,.

 

Heck, i just took a look at the event mentioned in the OP's first post. It's even worse than i realized with the first 7 temp cache logs by one person going like this.

 

Found temp,

Found temp,

Found temp,,,

 

It's certainly obvious that most of those logs are there for one reason and one reason only, to get that almighty smilie. :laughing:

Link to comment
Your second - Sally is counting temporary squares and she's throwing of the game. I'm not really sure what the rules are in hopscotch, maybe TrailBlazers can look them up for us, but if it's a competition where counting the temporary squares gives her an advantage, then it's not like our game at all. Another bad analogy.

This part is only bad if you come from the position that numbers do not count, and those logging temps only do it for the numbers, otherwise they would not log them seperatley or only post them as notes.

What is Mushtard is talking about? Why is he bringing me into this moronic hopscotch analogy? I want no part of it. :laughing:

This is yet another classic post. It made me smile.

Link to comment

Here's a couple of links to the threads from just a few weeks ago. Please read them and enjoy the angst.

 

link 1

 

link 2

 

I checked the links you provided. I did not find anything relevant to this topic. Did I miss something? Can you provide a link where there has ever been mention on this Forum of Temporary Caches being listed as additional Waypoints? Can you provide a link where TPTB have ever commented on Temp Caches being listed as additional Waypoints?

 

I wanted to know if this site allowed this event to be published in it's current form, or if they were slipped in post publication. Many have accused TPTB of straddling the fence on the Temp Cache issue. If they allowed this Event to be published in it's current form, that tells ME something.

 

ArcherDragoon is the ONLY person posting to this thread who has actually commented on THIS topic. Thank You AD for at least reading what I wrote. EVERY other response to this thread has been off topic.

 

I'm actually glad you cleared this up, from the first post I thought this was another temp logging thread :mad: .

"Logging temp caches is wrong in my opinion.

Allowing them to be "listed" on GC.com is wrong.

I'd like to hear what Surfer Joe has to say about this.

What did he know, and when did he know it?"

Listing temps as additional waypoints is a new one to me. I guess there's two ways to look at it, either temporary caches are not specifically allowed and are wrong. Or they are not specifically outlawed and therefore ok. I've peronsally starting dealing with the idea that no matter what I do or what my sense of right and wrong is, someone else will likely do it completely differently. I really like what Mopar suggested on page one, just drop all the public counts. Those that must inflate their egos can do so, those that are trying to compete with others have to find like minded people, and I can go on not caring about either :laughing:

 

As for your question to surfer joe, I have no idea. I wonder though, are the reviewers required to check out any additional waypoints on the page before listing? Or it one of those 'we might notice it but don't decline publishing because of it' type things??

Link to comment
To me, the height of selfishness is to want to remove someone else's fun simply because you don't care to play the same way. "If I'm not going to do it, nobody else should either".

 

Is the act of logging attends at events actually fun? I always thought hunting caches was fun and the act of logging was more of an obligation. I'm going to have to re-think this.

 

Maybe I'll go log some attends on some old events. I'm at work and not having a whole lot of fun at the moment. Maybe I can spice things up here a bit by logging some attendeds and find out what I've been

missing all along.

It's most likely no fun at all for most cachers. Seriously, have you ever looked at an event page and read some of those logs? They go something like this the majority of the time ,,,

 

Found temp cache #1 at **** event,

Found temp cache #2 at **** event,

Found temp cache #3 at **** event,

and so on, and so on,,,,,,.

 

Heck, i just took a look at the event mentioned in the OP's first post. It's even worse than i realized with the first 7 temp cache logs by one person going like this.

 

Found temp,

Found temp,

Found temp,,,

 

It's certainly obvious that most of those logs are there for one reason and one reason only, to get that almighty smilie. :laughing:

 

Exactly! :mad:
Link to comment
To me, the height of selfishness is to want to remove someone else's fun simply because you don't care to play the same way. "If I'm not going to do it, nobody else should either".

 

Is the act of logging attends at events actually fun? I always thought hunting caches was fun and the act of logging was more of an obligation. I'm going to have to re-think this.

 

Maybe I'll go log some attends on some old events. I'm at work and not having a whole lot of fun at the moment. Maybe I can spice things up here a bit by logging some attendeds and find out what I've been

missing all along.

It's most likely no fun at all for most cachers. Seriously, have you ever looked at an event page and read some of those logs? They go something like this the majority of the time ,,,

 

Found temp cache #1 at **** event,

Found temp cache #2 at **** event,

Found temp cache #3 at **** event,

and so on, and so on,,,,,,.

 

Heck, i just took a look at the event mentioned in the OP's first post. It's even worse than i realized with the first 7 temp cache logs by one person going like this.

 

Found temp,

Found temp,

Found temp,,,

 

It's certainly obvious that most of those logs are there for one reason and one reason only, to get that almighty smilie. :laughing:

 

I agree that it doesn't sound like fun, but I keep hearing about how much fun it is and who are we to spoil their fun. I just logged a few attendeds on an old cache of mine to see what all the hoopla was about. I dunno, maybe there is something wrong with me because I didn't think it was fun at all.

 

Maybe I didn't do enough? I stopped at 10. Maybe it doesn't become fun until you pass a certain number.

Link to comment

As for your question to surfer joe, I have no idea. I wonder though, are the reviewers required to check out any additional waypoints on the page before listing? Or it one of those 'we might notice it but don't decline publishing because of it' type things??

 

Did you not read King Boreas' post...had SurferJoe seen something wrong with the cache...he would have done somethign about it. SurferJoe is very good at what he does...he would have let KB know if soemthing was wrong with what he was doing.

 

I wanted to know if this site allowed this event to be published in it's current form, or if they were slipped in post publication. Many have accused TPTB of straddling the fence on the Temp Cache issue. If they allowed this Event to be published in it's current form, that tells ME something.

When THIS Event was submitted, three months prior to publication, the temps had not been placed. So no, the additional waypoints were not listed.

 

I have submitted other events with additional waypoints (temps) already included.

 

if they were slipped in post publication

 

If that is meant as a snide comment, our reviewer is very proactive and would know that was done.

Link to comment
To me, the height of selfishness is to want to remove someone else's fun simply because you don't care to play the same way. "If I'm not going to do it, nobody else should either".

 

Is the act of logging attends at events actually fun? I always thought hunting caches was fun and the act of logging was more of an obligation. I'm going to have to re-think this.

 

Maybe I'll go log some attends on some old events. I'm at work and not having a whole lot of fun at the moment. Maybe I can spice things up here a bit by logging some attendeds and find out what I've been

missing all along.

It's most likely no fun at all for most cachers. Seriously, have you ever looked at an event page and read some of those logs? They go something like this the majority of the time ,,,

 

Found temp cache #1 at **** event,

Found temp cache #2 at **** event,

Found temp cache #3 at **** event,

and so on, and so on,,,,,,.

 

Heck, i just took a look at the event mentioned in the OP's first post. It's even worse than i realized with the first 7 temp cache logs by one person going like this.

 

Found temp,

Found temp,

Found temp,,,

 

It's certainly obvious that most of those logs are there for one reason and one reason only, to get that almighty smilie. :laughing:

 

There are several like that, but that cacher, a friend of mine, has been very busy. Her daughter is home from Iraq, getting married, etc etc

 

She always makes a point of varied logs for any find. This was posted on my forum:

 

I'm sorry that my logs raised a red flag and got the boards buzzing. I'm sorry that I didn't spend the time to write better logs - I can correct that. I'm NOT sorry about logging the temps and will continue to do so. Frankly, I worked just as hard for those as for the permanent caches. If power trails weren't such an issue, neither would temps.

 

I thought about replying on the GC forum, but decided that I'm already stretched (read stressed) so much this week that my post would be far from pleasant. KB - if you want me to jump in, I will. Otherwise, I'm going to just quit reading the forum and try not to get worked up about it.

 

Perhaps a reviewer might step in for a minute or two, and explain the additional waypoint types, and how misuse reflects on the proximity tools?

 

I'm not at liberty to share what I've received from my reviewer.

Link to comment

I agree that it doesn't sound like fun, but I keep hearing about how much fun it is and who are we to spoil their fun. I just logged a few attendeds on an old cache of mine to see what all the hoopla was about. I dunno, maybe there is something wrong with me because I didn't think it was fun at all.

 

Those were false posts! You weren't there for the activity.

 

see what all the hoopla was about

 

Halloween Hoopla 2008 is on the last Saturday of October next year!

Link to comment
To me, the height of selfishness is to want to remove someone else's fun simply because you don't care to play the same way. "If I'm not going to do it, nobody else should either".

 

Is the act of logging attends at events actually fun? I always thought hunting caches was fun and the act of logging was more of an obligation. I'm going to have to re-think this.

 

Maybe I'll go log some attends on some old events. I'm at work and not having a whole lot of fun at the moment. Maybe I can spice things up here a bit by logging some attendeds and find out what I've been

missing all along.

It's most likely no fun at all for most cachers. Seriously, have you ever looked at an event page and read some of those logs? They go something like this the majority of the time ,,,

 

Found temp cache #1 at **** event,

Found temp cache #2 at **** event,

Found temp cache #3 at **** event,

and so on, and so on,,,,,,.

 

Heck, i just took a look at the event mentioned in the OP's first post. It's even worse than i realized with the first 7 temp cache logs by one person going like this.

 

Found temp,

Found temp,

Found temp,,,

 

It's certainly obvious that most of those logs are there for one reason and one reason only, to get that almighty smilie. :laughing:

 

I agree that it doesn't sound like fun, but I keep hearing about how much fun it is and who are we to spoil their fun. I just logged a few attendeds on an old cache of mine to see what all the hoopla was about. I dunno, maybe there is something wrong with me because I didn't think it was fun at all.

 

Maybe I didn't do enough? I stopped at 10. Maybe it doesn't become fun until you pass a certain number.

Are you implying that you'd change your mind and be okay with other people doing this, if only you understood what was fun for them about it?

Link to comment

As for your question to surfer joe, I have no idea. I wonder though, are the reviewers required to check out any additional waypoints on the page before listing? Or it one of those 'we might notice it but don't decline publishing because of it' type things??

 

Did you not read King Boreas' post...had SurferJoe seen something wrong with the cache...he would have done somethign about it. SurferJoe is very good at what he does...he would have let KB know if soemthing was wrong with what he was doing.

Your getting lost on the wrong thing, I don't care what SurferJoe did or what KB said. I asked if it was something the reviewers are required to do. Yes 'SurferJoe is proactive' good for him, now what about the other hundred(?) reviewers?

Link to comment

As for your question to surfer joe, I have no idea. I wonder though, are the reviewers required to check out any additional waypoints on the page before listing? Or it one of those 'we might notice it but don't decline publishing because of it' type things??

 

Did you not read King Boreas' post...had SurferJoe seen something wrong with the cache...he would have done somethign about it. SurferJoe is very good at what he does...he would have let KB know if soemthing was wrong with what he was doing.

Your getting lost on the wrong thing, I don't care what SurferJoe did or what KB said. I asked if it was something the reviewers are required to do. Yes 'SurferJoe is proactive' good for him, now what about the other hundred(?) reviewers?

Sorry...just a simple misread of your post...

 

With that said...let us continue the disscussion.

 

Edit: Didn't like the way something sounded on paper...sounded better in my head then in type :laughing:

Got a bit defensive about our state's reviewer and a couple good friends...

Edited by ArcherDragoon
Link to comment

As for your question to surfer joe, I have no idea. I wonder though, are the reviewers required to check out any additional waypoints on the page before listing? Or it one of those 'we might notice it but don't decline publishing because of it' type things??

 

Did you not read King Boreas' post...had SurferJoe seen something wrong with the cache...he would have done somethign about it. SurferJoe is very good at what he does...he would have let KB know if soemthing was wrong with what he was doing.

Your getting lost on the wrong thing, I don't care what SurferJoe did or what KB said. I asked if it was something the reviewers are required to do. Yes 'SurferJoe is proactive' good for him, now what about the other hundred(?) reviewers?

You know, i posted above that i thought using additional waypoints for temporary caches was a good idea. But i did just realize when i read this reply, that those additional waypoints on caches are used by reviewers to help them with their approval of a cache. In otherwords, those waypoints need to meet GC.com guidelines before a cache is published. I may have jumped the gun on my earlier positive reply since temporary caches do not meet these guidelines... :laughing:

Link to comment

From my point of view as a reviewer, the additional waypoints are just parts of a multicache listed as an event. Typically with a multicache, you log the cache page once.

 

My personal opinion as a geocacher is that they should only be logged once. They would not qualify as separate caches and would not be listed on the site since so many of them appear to have serious proximity issues. I have not checked them for precise proximity issues because it isn't my territory to review and it isn't my issue personally as a reviewer.

 

Each year our association holds a challenge event. About 35+ caches are hidden and you find anywhere from 7 to 15 caches (this year it was 7). You log the event page once. The event continues to grow each year. This year we had to turn a couple of folks away from the competition part because we only planned for 50 teams. I think we had about 75 to 80 people at the event. There has never been a complaint that you can log the event only once.

Link to comment
You know, i posted above that i thought using additional waypoints for temporary caches was a good idea. But i did just realize when i read this reply, that those additional waypoints on caches are used by reviewers to help them with their approval of a cache. In otherwords, those waypoints need to meet GC.com guidelines before a cache is published. I may have jumped the gun on my earlier positive reply since temporary caches do not meet these guidelines... :laughing:
Good point and that's why TPTB will never add that option. :mad:

 

One thing TPTB could do is only allow people to log a find/attended on the same cache once every 7 days. That would still allow the grandfathered traveling caches to be logged more than once, but it would put impede abuse.

Link to comment
You know, i posted above that i thought using additional waypoints for temporary caches was a good idea. But i did just realize when i read this reply, that those additional waypoints on caches are used by reviewers to help them with their approval of a cache. In otherwords, those waypoints need to meet GC.com guidelines before a cache is published. I may have jumped the gun on my earlier positive reply since temporary caches do not meet these guidelines... :huh:
Good point and that's why TPTB will never add that option. :laughing:

 

One thing TPTB could do is only allow people to log a find/attended on the same cache once every 7 days. That would still allow the grandfathered traveling caches to be logged more than once, but it would put impede abuse.

 

This is why I still read your posts TG. Every now and then you say something I can agree with. :mad:

 

It makes no difference to me. It might pacify the folks on the other side of the fence and the really dedicated number pumpers get a few nights in the box to think about it before they can continue their practice. Win-win.

 

I think it has merit. You should seriously consider making a feature request thread on the GC.com forum. It's gonna get buried here.

Link to comment
You know, i posted above that i thought using additional waypoints for temporary caches was a good idea. But i did just realize when i read this reply, that those additional waypoints on caches are used by reviewers to help them with their approval of a cache. In otherwords, those waypoints need to meet GC.com guidelines before a cache is published. I may have jumped the gun on my earlier positive reply since temporary caches do not meet these guidelines... :huh:
Good point and that's why TPTB will never add that option. :laughing:

 

One thing TPTB could do is only allow people to log a find/attended on the same cache once every 7 days. That would still allow the grandfathered traveling caches to be logged more than once, but it would put impede abuse.

 

This is why I still read your posts TG. Every now and then you say something I can agree with. :mad:

 

It makes no difference to me. It might pacify the folks on the other side of the fence and the really dedicated number pumpers get a few nights in the box to think about it before they can continue their practice. Win-win.

 

I think it has merit. You should seriously consider making a feature request thread on the GC.com forum. It's gonna get buried here.

Suggesting limiting loggers to once every 7 days, or limiting them to once per cache ever, is still limiting them from multilogging an event cache for no reason other than "because I don't want them to".

 

Why do this?

Link to comment
You know, i posted above that i thought using additional waypoints for temporary caches was a good idea. But i did just realize when i read this reply, that those additional waypoints on caches are used by reviewers to help them with their approval of a cache. In otherwords, those waypoints need to meet GC.com guidelines before a cache is published. I may have jumped the gun on my earlier positive reply since temporary caches do not meet these guidelines... :laughing:
Good point and that's why TPTB will never add that option. :mad:

My feeling is that you should be able to list whatever additional waypoints you want at your event. How about the entrance to the park? the restrooms? the playground for the kids? the firepit where you're going to have a campfire when it gets dark? the start of the trail where you are going to have a group hike? the field where the three-legged race will take place? the temporary caches you put out for people to find? These are all legitimate things to do at an event and it is legitimate to put the coordinates on the cache page. I can't believe that because some people might log an extra attended log for finding a temporary cache that listing the coordinates of an event cache on the event page using the additional waypoint facility is in some way an abuse of the website. If you view the temporary caches as stages in one big multi called the event, then proximity doesn't matter. It's very unlikely that these caches violate any listing guidelines other than permanence and proximity and so what if they did. These are coordinates for activities that the event organizer takes responsibility for. Geocaching.com generally won't have the same level of concern as they do when listing a cache separately. If the coords are listed however the reviewer certainly could take a quick look to see if the cache is on the active railroad tracks or under a highway bridge if it would make you feel better.

Link to comment
You know, i posted above that i thought using additional waypoints for temporary caches was a good idea. But i did just realize when i read this reply, that those additional waypoints on caches are used by reviewers to help them with their approval of a cache. In otherwords, those waypoints need to meet GC.com guidelines before a cache is published. I may have jumped the gun on my earlier positive reply since temporary caches do not meet these guidelines... :D
Good point and that's why TPTB will never add that option. :)

 

One thing TPTB could do is only allow people to log a find/attended on the same cache once every 7 days. That would still allow the grandfathered traveling caches to be logged more than once, but it would put impede abuse.

 

This is why I still read your posts TG. Every now and then you say something I can agree with. :laughing:

 

It makes no difference to me. It might pacify the folks on the other side of the fence and the really dedicated number pumpers get a few nights in the box to think about it before they can continue their practice. Win-win.

 

I think it has merit. You should seriously consider making a feature request thread on the GC.com forum. It's gonna get buried here.

Suggesting limiting loggers to once every 7 days, or limiting them to once per cache ever, is still limiting them from multilogging an event cache for no reason other than "because I don't want them to".

 

Why do this?

Frankly, it has merit.

 

We're back to the toddler that has gone ultrasonic. If you want the toddler to shut up quickly, you can try putting something sweet in its mouth. :huh:

 

I may not always agree with Jeremy, but you gotta respect the guy with his hand on the throttle. If I shared his viewpoints about what constitutes log abuse, and my hand were on the throttle, this solution would merit a meeting with my code monkeys to see if it were workable. Plain and simple.

 

Either way it makes no difference to me. Maybe with the instant gratification gone the practices will trail off for the most part, but the dedicated number pumpers will still have a methadone maintenance plan for their addiction. :D

 

At least it will take several weeks after such an event for the alarm to be raised again. :):mad:

 

To make a short story long......

 

I don't bother with temp caches at events as a general rule. However, Mudfrog did one at TC07 that had such high praise that I just HAD to do it. I never once felt I deserved a smiley for it. The memory is more important. It's not within the bounds of my personal logging ethics to multi log events. I'm closing in and on track to have attended my 100th event by year's end and I don't want to mess that milestone up. I don't look down my nose at anyone that feels differently though.

Link to comment
You know, i posted above that i thought using additional waypoints for temporary caches was a good idea. But i did just realize when i read this reply, that those additional waypoints on caches are used by reviewers to help them with their approval of a cache. In otherwords, those waypoints need to meet GC.com guidelines before a cache is published. I may have jumped the gun on my earlier positive reply since temporary caches do not meet these guidelines... :huh:
Good point and that's why TPTB will never add that option. :D

 

One thing TPTB could do is only allow people to log a find/attended on the same cache once every 7 days. That would still allow the grandfathered traveling caches to be logged more than once, but it would put impede abuse.

 

This is why I still read your posts TG. Every now and then you say something I can agree with. :laughing:

 

It makes no difference to me. It might pacify the folks on the other side of the fence and the really dedicated number pumpers get a few nights in the box to think about it before they can continue their practice. Win-win.

 

I think it has merit. You should seriously consider making a feature request thread on the GC.com forum. It's gonna get buried here.

Suggesting limiting loggers to once every 7 days, or limiting them to once per cache ever, is still limiting them from multilogging an event cache for no reason other than "because I don't want them to".

 

Why do this?

Yep. I don't really follow TG suggestion. If TPTB wanted it would be fairly easy to have a flag saying if more than one found/attended log is allowed per cache. They already know which caches are the grandfathered moving caches. For other caches where multiple logs might be reasonable, the owner can request the reviewer to set this flag. No need for some once per 7 days. Either the additional log is legitimate or not. I think it would be silly for TPTB to decide to restrict how people log all of a sudden, but then I thought it was silly for them to change Waymarking so that you can only visit a waymark once (after that you can only choose write note). Seems to me while it only makes sense to find a cache once or attend an event once, you should be able to visit a waymark every time you visit a waymark. TPTB clearly have the ability to do things that don't make any sense so maybe they will implement TG's once per 7 day suggestion. :mad:

Link to comment
As to it being right or wrong, take another scenario. A cacher decides they do not like another cacher because of some personal reasons. Whenever that cacher finds one of theirs hides, they simply delete them (and keep deleting them). They're within their rights, it is their hide to maintain. Is this wrong? Watch how you answer, because from a purely black and white perspective using only the guidelines, there is no difference.

This doesn't ring true to me. If someone doesn't like me and deletes my finds, their actions are having an effect on my find count and the fun I'm able to have.

 

Multiloggers aren't having any effect on your find count, and they don't keep you from being able to do anything.

 

So it's not the same, there is a huge difference.

No, it actually as far as GC.com is concerned, *IS* the exact same thing.

Just like the topic of discussion:

  • There is no guideline or rule against it.
  • The website software allows you to do it.
  • TPTB know it happens and have said they will not be the log police. And,
  • TPTB do not like the practice, yet they refuse to stop it.

So, does that make it ok to do it?

I still think the fact that since one practice changes someone else's game, and the other doesn't, makes them two different things.

 

Multilogging doesn't bother me when other people do it because it doesn't change my game.

Deleting my finds simply because you don't like me would definitely change my game, and I'd be opposed to that.

 

I'm guessing that TPTB have refused to stop it because they see that it's not hurting the folks that don't multilog in any significant way. But that's just a guess.

 

It doesn't change your game if I delete your logs. Your numbers are important to you (your words) and others comparing to you is not your problem. So if I delete your logs, you can still record them in GSAK or whatever, and your fun is still intact and I have not affected your game.

 

The OP does not have an issue with the cords listed, only logging, so if you wanted to keep the wannabe caches for your own count, just like above, no one has an issue and your game is not affected either way..

 

So back to my question; based on what the guidelines say, would you have a problem with logs being deleted for reasons unrelated to the cache itself ?

Link to comment
You know, i posted above that i thought using additional waypoints for temporary caches was a good idea. But i did just realize when i read this reply, that those additional waypoints on caches are used by reviewers to help them with their approval of a cache. In otherwords, those waypoints need to meet GC.com guidelines before a cache is published. I may have jumped the gun on my earlier positive reply since temporary caches do not meet these guidelines... :)
Good point and that's why TPTB will never add that option. :)

 

One thing TPTB could do is only allow people to log a find/attended on the same cache once every 7 days. That would still allow the grandfathered traveling caches to be logged more than once, but it would put impede abuse.

 

This is why I still read your posts TG. Every now and then you say something I can agree with. :laughing:

 

It makes no difference to me. It might pacify the folks on the other side of the fence and the really dedicated number pumpers get a few nights in the box to think about it before they can continue their practice. Win-win.

 

I think it has merit. You should seriously consider making a feature request thread on the GC.com forum. It's gonna get buried here.

Suggesting limiting loggers to once every 7 days, or limiting them to once per cache ever, is still limiting them from multilogging an event cache for no reason other than "because I don't want them to".

 

Why do this?

Frankly, it has merit.

 

We're back to the toddler that has gone ultrasonic. If you want the toddler to shut up quickly, you can try putting something sweet in its mouth. :huh:

 

I may not always agree with Jeremy, but you gotta respect the guy with his hand on the throttle. If I shared his viewpoints about what constitutes log abuse, and my hand were on the throttle, this solution would merit a meeting with my code monkeys to see if it were workable. Plain and simple.

 

Either way it makes no difference to me. Maybe with the instant gratification gone the practices will trail off for the most part, but the dedicated number pumpers will still have a methadone maintenance plan for their addiction. :D

 

At least it will take several weeks after such an event for the alarm to be raised again. :):mad:

 

To make a short story long......

 

I don't bother with temp caches at events as a general rule. However, Mudfrog did one at TC07 that had such high praise that I just HAD to do it. I never once felt I deserved a smiley for it. The memory is more important. It's not within the bounds of my personal logging ethics to multi log events. I'm closing in and on track to have attended my 100th event by year's end and I don't want to mess that milestone up. I don't look down my nose at anyone that feels differently though.

 

Thanks Snoogans. I've been trying to think of win-win solutions for some of these problems that we have constant foot fights about in these threads. So maybe I will post it in the other thread and see what some others think. :D
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...